Passage illustrates the importance of urban forest. Forest can be saved by using legislation. While lecture states that in past such program was not successful. Speaker casts doubt on author in regards to urban forest legislation and points in the passage by giving specific examples and reasons.
Firstly, he points out that as per the author laws should be enforced on development. Mature trees should be saved by law. According to speaker this is misconception, in reality, in past law was not much successful. Reasons behind this was complicated language of law. this was not understood by community. Consequently, legislation was not applied properly. Thus he unequivocally negates the information of passage.
Secondly, the speaker opposes the information given by author regarding collection of funds. To maintain forest of city funds needed. This should by collected from people in the form of tax increase as well as private fund collection. This is quiet contrary, speaker reminds that in past low funds were generated from privet donation. Furthermore increase in tax will be helpful. We should work on it.
Thirdly, he denies validity of the point that was averred in the passage. Public should be aware regarding benefits and importance. Benefits like enhancing area and because of that pollution will be reduced. Speaker contradicts by saying that, this method will be successful if it implied correctly. Details of benefits should be reached to public.
Hence in conclusion, after this holistic analysis, speaker lucidly substantiates his points of view with cogency.
Passage illustrates the importance of urban
forest
.
Forest
can
be saved
by using legislation.
While
lecture states that in past such program was not successful. Speaker casts doubt on author
in regards to
urban
forest
legislation and
points
in the passage by giving specific examples and reasons.
Firstly
, he
points
out that as per the author
laws
should
be enforced
on development. Mature trees should
be saved
by
law
. According to speaker this is misconception, in reality, in past
law
was not much successful. Reasons behind this
was complicated
language of
law
.
this
was not understood by community.
Consequently
, legislation was not applied
properly
.
Thus
he
unequivocally
negates the information of passage.
Secondly
, the speaker opposes the information
given
by author regarding collection of funds. To maintain
forest
of city funds needed. This should
by
collected from
people
in the form of tax increase
as well
as private
fund
collection. This is
quiet
contrary, speaker reminds that in past low funds
were generated
from privet donation.
Furthermore
increase in tax will be helpful. We should work on it.
Thirdly
, he denies validity of the
point
that
was averred
in the passage. Public should be aware regarding benefits and importance. Benefits like enhancing area and
because
of that pollution will be
reduced
. Speaker contradicts by saying that, this method will be successful if it implied
correctly
.
Details
of benefits should
be reached
to public.
Hence
in conclusion
, after this holistic analysis, speaker
lucidly
substantiates his
points
of view with cogency.